THIRTY-HOUR WEEK

Grey River Argus, 12 June 1935, Page 3

THIRTY-HOUR WEEK

AMERICAN TRADE UNIONS URGE IT.

The American Federation of Labour is strongly supporting the Bill to establish the thirty-hour week in all industries and is organising a nationwide campaign to achieve this purpose. Recently, the president, Mr. W. J. Green, addressed a mass meeting in favour of the shorter working week in New York, which was attended by some thousands of people, and there seems to be a possibility of this Bill becoming law during the present session of Congress. The Bill which is now before the United States Congress is backed by the American Federation of Labour as the only means of putting back the 11,000,000 unemployed workers of America.

“This appalling number of unem ployed means not only that industry is suffering a loss in demand for goods which it cannot afford to be without, but that the morale of these people is suffering irreparable deterioration,” the Federation declares. “Furthermore, the expendiutre of public funds has reached staggering proportions.” In a study just made available the economists of the Federation point out that “hours of work have not been reduced in proportion to increased productivity per worker,” and that an economic system “cannot function properly when vast numbers of workers, thown out of work through increased efficiencies, are severed from the industrial system of which they have been, and must be, a part.

“Our experience under N.R.A. codes has clearly established the fact that the 40-hour week is far too Jong to effect re-employment. In answer to the argument that the 30-hour week is not practical because of the prohibitive cost increases which would result, it is not necessary for us to look beyond the decreasing proportion which the labour dollar represents of the value of the product, the drastic reductions in total costs which are affected under our present system with increases in production, and to the recent earnings of industry which should go directly toward the immediate stimulation of the consumers’ market rather than to investors whose primary interest is in increased outlays for plant and equipment.

“Even in so-called prosperity, the economic cost of unemployment has been overpowering. Our loss of potential national income from 1920 to 1929 approximated 27,000,000,000 dollars. This represents 17,000,000,000 dollars of wealth which could have been created by the labour of these workers had they been employed. “In 1934 alone, approximately 2,500,000,000 dollars of public funds went for relief. This figure does not take into consideration the loss in incomes of those who were at work or the national income which would have been

created had all unemployed been at work at a fair living wage.

“On the basis of facts which are available for 1933 and 1934, it can be definitely stated that increased expenditures for wages mean increased expenditures by wage-arners and a larger volume of sales for industry, even for heavy industry.

“The 30-hour week is the practical solution which we recommend for the economic dilemma in which we now find ourselves. Increased employment and increased earnings mean a great market for the products of industry and, therefore, a substantial immediate improvement in the health of our industry. The short work week not only partially offsets increased efficiencies, but establishes standards of leisure time in which the wage earners of the country may learn to live that type of life to which every American citizen is entitled. The only sound solution is the re-absorption of all able men and women in private industry.’

We see no reason why there should not he a similar campaign carried on in New Zealand, for certain it is that the eight-hour day was established in this country long before it was intro dueed into any industry in the United States. /